About your Search

20121204
20121204
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
at the amount of time, particularly in the obama administration, even more so than the george w. bush of administration, you look at senior officials who go to asia, throughout the region, and also the discussion and attempt to courtney with china. there seems to be a lot of that to try to coordinate. but again coming back to jim steinberg was the fourth member of this panel would happily and armitage and joe knight looking at the die you island dispute, and said they were shocked and surprised why the level of miscommunication, ms. assessment and dangerous of that between china and japan. so it raises them up question of whether or not, i agree. i know china wants respect to whether or not what you are seeing is a strategic game, or tactical game by china to use its potential ms. assessment to kind of look like the unstable part in some of his to basically help push out some interest. and that we've been a little bit. >> steve, i think the essential question is not of domination or respect, it's about whether it will be static of whether it will be dynamic. and there is no way that n
.s., the obama administration, nato now obviously very concerned about the regime of president assad potentially using chemical weapons, poison gas against its own people. here's the question, what is the difference killing civilians in syria with bombs from jet fighters or attack helicopters as opposed to using say poison gas or chemical warfare? >> that's a good question. in one sense in moral terms, there is no difference and almost 40,000 people have died in syria already. but i think the use of chemical weapons and poison gas, i think the fatalities would be very much greater. and it does cross a line. these aren't judgments that you can make in any scientific way. but i think what your administration, the international community is signaling to president assad, if you cross that line, there will be a strong reaction. >> those are tough words coming from president obama, from secretary of state hillary clinton, from the nato secretary-general today in brussels. but is that enough to president bahar al assad from using chemical weapons or is there something else the international community s
by the bush administration first, and then, of course, were increased by the obama administration. it's important to recognize that the eslc report is not political in any way, shape or form. it endorses things that are heartily supported by the right , in some cases, and on the other hand that are supported by people on the left. it's important to recognize you can't just take the parts that you like. you have to take the wholistic approach, which is to, again, maximize u.s. production and to at the same time significantly reduce consumption partly by diversifying our transportation sector away from petroleum. now, the last thing i'll say before we sit down is it's important to recognize that petroleum use in transportation is the pivot point of this entire problem. about 70% of our 18.7 million barrel per day use of petroleum in this country is for transportation, and transportation is fueled about 93% of the time by petroleum. so if you want to reduce the united states' dependence on imported petroleum and the related geopolitical issues that that causes, particularly in an era whe
the number of permits during the obama administration's first term and there will be a price to pay in our energy costs over the next four years. we hear people saying over and over and over again, americans must pay their fair share. the rich must pay their fair share. everyone must pay their fair share and on that i am in 100% agreement with our president, with leader reid at the other end of this building, with my friends across the aisle, democrats here who want everybody to pay their fair share, i'm in 1 pun% agreement. we -- 100% agreement. we absolutely should do that. make everybody pay their fair share. lots of folks use the metaphor, let's make sure everybody has some skin in the game. well, if you really want to have everyone pay their fair share, there is an easy answer and fortunately it would drive this economy to brand new heights, it would drive this country and our economy to a new economic renaissance. it would be incredible and all of our friends around the country who are suffering, who don't have even $3 a gallon to pay for gasoline, it would help them when they can't
years of the bush administration when it shot up dramatically as well. so it's not simply a barack obama phenomenon. but i don't. what we see both from my own work inside the senate and observation from what we see with books like mike grunwald's is that it was a very deliberate strategy hatched at least at inaugural if not before to try to raise the bar and to block things from happening, and to get unanimous minority support. and to do it not just on build 40 want to amendments, but on build where he had no interest, just make it all messy and make it difficult. i'm not going to defend barack obama's outreach to the minority party, but i could go back to knot the use of the filibuster but other methods of obstruction with bill clinton who reached out all the time. so i think that's the factor but a minor one. i think harry reid's use of filling the amendment tree, partly this is chicken and egg, but has been done too much and that didn't result in at least some protests and willingness of some senators on his side who might otherwise have joined in some of these filibusters to do so. i
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5